Myers v. Hummel

Filing 103

MINUTE ORDER denying 95 Defendant's Amended Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment And in the alternative Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the extent it seeks (1) to strike 89 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) an award of reasonable fees and costs. Defendant shall have twenty-one days from the date of this order to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 09/01/2011.(wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–00400–KMT–KLM

BERNARD KENNETH MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DORWIN DWAYNE HUMMEL,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Defendant’s “Amended Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment And in the
alternative Motion for Extension of Time to Respond” (Doc. No. 95, filed July 12, 2011) is
DENIED to the extent it seeks (1) to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
89, filed June 23, 2011) and (2) an award of reasonable fees and costs. Although Plaintiff has
failed to fully comply with D.C.Colo.LCivR 56.1A, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is not so “verbose, redundant, ungrammatical, or unintelligible” as to
warrant that it be stricken under D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1H. Accordingly, pursuant to the minute
order entered on July 26, 2011 (Doc. No. 101), Defendant shall have twenty-one days from the
date of this order to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated: September 1, 2011